P. v. Espinoza
Filed 11/19/13 P.
v. Espinoza CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ERIK JOHN
MICHAEL ESPINOZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B249914
(Super. Ct. No. SA082716-01)
(Los Angeles County)
Erik
John Michael Espinoza appeals a judgment
of conviction after he expressly waived his
contendere to arson of property, and admitted suffering a prior arson conviction
and a serious felony strike conviction.
(Pen. Code, §§ 451, subd. (d), 451.1, subd. (a)(1), 667, subds.
(b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] In accordance with a
Espinoza to seven years in prison, consisting of a doubled two-year midterm
(four years), plus three years for a prior arson conviction. The court awarded him 225 days of presentence
custody credit and imposed a $240 restitution fine, a $240 parole revocation
restitution fine (stayed), a $40 court security assessment, and a $30 criminal
conviction assessment. (§§ 1202.4,
subd. (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 70373.) It also dismissed the remaining counts and
allegations on the motion of the prosecutor.
The
arson offense involved a fire that Espinoza set on December
11, 2012, in
the backseat of a police patrol car after he was arrested on unrelated
charges. The fire damaged the Plexiglas
window separating the front seat and backseat of the vehicle.
We
appointed counsel to represent Espinoza
in this appeal. After counsel's
examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues.
On
September 16, 2013, we advised Espinoza by mail that he had 30 days within which
to personally submit any contentions or
issues that he wished to raise on appeal.
We have not received a response.
We
have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Espinoza's attorney has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN,
J.
PERREN,
J.
James R. Dabney, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Richard
B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory
references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
